I have seen someone use Zeno as a class and I wasn't quite aware of this class for SCPs. I have only seen Keter, Euclid, and Safe. Please could someone tell me of this class or if this is a class at all. And if it is, what makes it that class? Thank you.

Safe, Euclid and Keter are the standard classes for articles. Some authors such as SilberResearcher use nonstandard classes to their articles to add something new or interesting to their SCP. Other examples include "Thaumiel" (Roget's Proposal and FortuneFavorsBold's 2000 entry), as well as many ofScantronsarticles use nonstandard suffixes to the standard classes. You can find individual meaning by either looking at the comments page for these articles, or asking the author themselves. :)

Tell you what, in addition to Safe, Euclid, and Keter, there are a couple ideas a few of us have been kicking around and what we reckon we might make them mean.

Thaumiel: Historically this meant either "super Keter" or "Anti-keter". But if Keter just means "really hard to contain and imperative to keep contained" then making a Super or an Anti of this class is not very meaningful. So I wrote it to mean an internal secret of the Foundation. Either an anomalous technology used in containment or something otherwise sensitive enough that general clearance can't include it.

Indeterminate: I'm not sure if we ever decided on the precise name (Indeterminate might be it, but we also kicked around "Copenhagen" and "Shroedinger") but this would be a class for objects which we cannot tell containment status for even in principle. We think we're doug a good job, we're trying our best, but it's unknown and can't be known for some reason.

Other additions kicked around include an existential/normalcy threat level, and designating SCPs as "object" or "phenomenon" or "location". Just to expand the descriptive power of the object class.

I mean, there's a large cross section of writers here who think the SEK system is insufficient in one way or another. I feel like moves in this direction have been stifled by the sentiment that "well I think it sucks but no one will ever change it". In reality there are a lot of us. And maybe Series 3 might be the place for us to start exploring ways to save the "Object Class" model by extension or modification.

We just have to all start moving in the same direction… Hard? Probably. But it will be worth it.

I think there are a dozen maybe who are advocating it openly. But the number who would support a reasonable change (provided some were willing to lead the way in an organized manner), I'd be willing to bet is far in excess of the number of us tossing about ideas.

I, for one, am strongly opposed to it, because adding sub-designations and threat levels and object categories to the containment class overcomplicates matters and contravenes the point of SCP articles being a summary of the object; presumably, those sort of details would go in the full report.

Also, I can just envision the harping-on it would cause in comment threads. "Why did you classify this as Orange-Arboreal-Phenomenon-Zeta? It should clearly be Yellow-Botanical-Event-Omicron!"

Why not add one or two, like Thaumiel for classified and Shroedinger indeterminate or what have you, but have their use restricted. They could only be applied to a scip with permission from senior staff. There's probably a few currently on the site that could be changed to these already.

Thank you all for the explanation. I think it would be cool if there was more classes added. I understand that only three classes could not be enough for some and if there was different classes to determine certain capabilities of SCPs then it would be substantially better for most.

There are actually a lot of different interpretations on Thaumiel. It was initially used as "Anti-Keter" or "Super Keter," but others have used it to mean "Must be contained from the Foundation itself." A perfect example of this would be the official SCP-2000.

Right now, it's sort of in a head-canon-ish area where it depends on your interpretation. I'd imagine that with use though, there could be something official.

As someone who advocates for hyperrealism and thinks that S/E/K/T is retardedly insufficient for safety and contingency planning, I'm also an advocate of keeping the system because any overhaul that introduces new classes and subclasses will also destroy some of the vagueness that makes articles fun to read. There's a lot of value in intentionally keeping the classifications vague.

You have a point, but the fact that there are articles that have a specific designations/sub-designations is disquieting, those articles should be revised and re-designed or better give expanded explanations of why are they designed in that way.